Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hitsoft17 who wrote (82124)	12/19/2000 6:11:33 PM
From: ItsAllCyclical	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Hitsoft, international crisis in '97 vs today... >> I recall when the international crisis hit a couple years ago and they came in with two mid period rate cuts and turned the slide around quickly. They can do it again and likely will if they think the need is there. << That is the mindset of many. I disagree with it, here's why: 1) The US economy is basically the lifeline to the world. Last time when the crisis hit the US economy was so strong that we bailed everyone else out through exports. This time we might need the bailing out, but everyone else is already weak. 2) In the '97 crisis $12 oil and cheap natural gas helped get us out of trouble. Now we still face $25 oil and very expensive natural gas. Greenspan can't do a thing about those. 3) In '97 the crisis was largely a debt-default/currency crisis issue. The Fed and the powers that be can deal with those types of issues better than they can the economy in general. Greenspan interest rate cuts will only help on 9-12 month lagging basis and they only moderately help the stock markets in an indirect way. 4) In '97 the stock market was overvalued, but fundamentals still looked strong. We certainly didn't have mania at that point. Today we still have some mania and fundamentals are deteriorating. Again I think the comparisions to Japan's Nikkie in '89 and Nasdaq 5000 are justified. 10 years later Japan is still underwater. A sobering thought. I'm certainly no expert, but I think there are MAJOR differences between today and the '97 crisis. It's not a question of owning gold going forward, but rather how much do you own? Maybe some of our more astute posters can add some thoughts on '97 vs today and Greenspan's role.

To: hitsoft17 who wrote (82124)	12/19/2000 6:19:32 PM
From: Big Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Just finished up a two hour meeting with Matt Simmons. He is a very interesting guy when it comes to oil/energy. No surprise, he agrees with us that 'we ain't seen nothin' yet'. California is just the beginning of energy problems for the country. The culprit? We (the world in general and the US specifically) do not have the infrastructure/capacity to meet energy demand. He sees a grand national effort to Rebuild Energy...but this will only come after there has been much pain and Americans stop trying to lay blame on various parties. One good thing, he says, is that people in high places are actually starting to acknowledge that there IS a problem. And the problem will not be solved by 'putting a band aid on the tumor'. This is a big first step. He and I agreed that Energy would be the first big challenge for W. As for Energy Secy, Matt likes, and has suggested, Bennett Johnston, a democrat. This is a guy that understands the problem, and being a democrat will be a plus for getting things done. After such a meeting, a Dog like me wants to buy everything that smells like energy. 2001 - The Crisis big